How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[barbos]

The thing that you are missing is that Ukrainians have nowhere to retreat to.

Puh-leez, they can surrender right now and nobody will carpet bomb them like you did with Dresden.

You wouldn't need carpet bombing to genocide them if you were in control.

Ukraine has no reason to expect any better treatment overall than what we have already seen in the areas you occupy--and that's basically genocide.

Strong words from someone who actually supported and supports actual genocide.

Calling what is happening in Gaza "genocide" doesn't make it so. They're always claiming genocide, that doesn't make it so. If it rises to the level of "genocide" then you're guilty of genocide in Ukraine. Far more so because of so much basically random attacks on cities.

Court disagrees with you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The important fact to note here is that Hungary, Russia's staunchest ally within the EU, dropped its threat to block the $50B aid package, making the approval unanimous.

I'm not sure how to follow the money here.
If EU approves $50B military aid package, but the U.S. Congress refuses to help fund, does that mean that the U.S. military industrial complex won't get to cash in?

Boy, that would like a fire under Congress' asses. Damnation! Suddenly, everyone in Congress would demand U.S. taxpayer funding for this war against communism.
Tom

You have to look more carefully at what the numbers actually mean.

This is mostly money they already received. We are sending weapons, the $ is the supposed (such things don't really have a market price) value of the weapons. In time they will receive orders for replacements for the expended weapons. However, some of the weapons would have otherwise been retired unused (they don't have an infinite shelf life) and replacements ordered anyway.

The EU is sending money, supplies and weapons they have. Many of those were bought from the US in times past.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The world's navies still have plenty of other surface ships, though relatively small and fast ones. They have guns, but relatively small ones, suitable for attacking airplanes and missiles. But are they also becoming vulnerable?

Surface ships are little more than targets on a modern battlefield.

Carrier groups still have some real power because they actually are a floating runway and can keep enemies from getting too close.

 

[bilby]

Surface ships are little more than targets on a modern battlefield.

Indeed.

That's why surface ship's captains and crews try, as far as possible, to keep them on water instead. A battleship in a field is basically just a weak fortress, with a huge amount of completely unnecessary propulsion and navigation equipment.

 

[barbos]

Georgian Border Security intercepted 14kg of C4 bombs sent from Odessa to Voronezh through Georgia.
I guess we now know what Nuland meant when she spoke about surprises for Russia.
I think it's time to put Nuland on Interpol wanted list.
She probably brought C4 to Kiev herself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What international law is that?

The one which says "One can not improve their security at the expense of security of other"

Projection.

The NATO expansion threatened nobody--it's a defensive alliance, if a NATO member were to attack Russia they would receive no support. It's Russia that wants security by making bordering nations into client states.

 

[bilby]

Georgian Border Security intercepted 14kg of C4 bombs sent from Odessa to Voronezh through Georgia.
I guess we now know what Nuland meant when she spoke about surprises for Russia.
I think it's time to put Nuland on Interpol wanted list.
She probably brought C4 to Kiev herself.

As far as I can tell, the only person who gives shit the first about this "Nuland" character is you.

I certainly don't care one iota about him.

 

[bilby]

What international law is that?

The one which says "One can not improve their security at the expense of security of other"

It seems you made that up from whole cloth. I mean, if there were an international law that said that, I would expect Google to know about it:



Did you mean "One cannot improve their security at the expense of security of other"?



Apparently not.

Are we all allowed to invent our own "international law"? Or do you have some kind of special dispensation from the UN or some other supranational body?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What international law is that?

The one which says "One can not improve their security at the expense of security of other"

Buddy, you really are in denial. You need therapy! Russia's primary threat is China. There is no threat from the west of invasion. What Putler really wants is the ability to invade countries with no consequences. You want the ability to bully at no cost to your country.

Russia wants to be surrounded with client states. Never mind what those states want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Surface ships are little more than targets on a modern battlefield.

Indeed.

That's why surface ship's captains and crews try, as far as possible, to keep them on water instead. A battleship in a field is basically just a weak fortress, with a huge amount of completely unnecessary propulsion and navigation equipment.

I have actually seen numbers on a landgoing battleship. I'd hate to think of how fast the propellers would wear out but a battleship could be built to sail a sea of sand (say, parts of the Sahara), the engines have enough power to pump enough air into it to fluidize it.

 

[Tigers!]

What international law is that?

The one which says "One can not improve their security at the expense of security of other"

It seems you made that up from whole cloth. I mean, if there were an international law that said that, I would expect Google to know about it:



Did you mean "One cannot improve their security at the expense of security of other"?

View attachment 45324

Apparently not.

Are we all allowed to invent our own "international law"? Or do you have some kind of special dispensation from the UN or some other supranational body?

The Aust. Cyber security Centre appears on a Google search. How nice.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Surface ships are little more than targets on a modern battlefield.

Indeed.

That's why surface ship's captains and crews try, as far as possible, to keep them on water instead. A battleship in a field is basically just a weak fortress, with a huge amount of completely unnecessary propulsion and navigation equipment.

I have actually seen numbers on a landgoing battleship. I'd hate to think of how fast the propellers would wear out but a battleship could be built to sail a sea of sand (say, parts of the Sahara), the engines have enough power to pump enough air into it to fluidize it.

Google screw drive vehicle.

 

[TomC]

I have actually seen numbers on a landgoing battleship. I'd hate to think of how fast the propellers would wear out but a battleship could be built to sail a sea of sand (say, parts of the Sahara), the engines have enough power to pump enough air into it to

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of.
Big, heavily armed, ships aren't particularly capable of defending themselves from small drones, designed for the task. That's why Russia's fleet got their butts kicked in the Black Sea by a country without a navy.

A ship sailing through sand?
Yeah, right.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

Senate approves $118 billion bill pairing aid for Ukraine and Israel with border fund : NPR - February 5, 202410:41 AM ET - "Senate negotiators have reached a deal on a $118 billion bill to pair funding for the US Border with Mexico with security assistance for Israel and Ukraine. The bill is facing long odds in the House."

 

[bilby]

Surface ships are little more than targets on a modern battlefield.

Indeed.

That's why surface ship's captains and crews try, as far as possible, to keep them on water instead. A battleship in a field is basically just a weak fortress, with a huge amount of completely unnecessary propulsion and navigation equipment.

I have actually seen numbers on a landgoing battleship. I'd hate to think of how fast the propellers would wear out but a battleship could be built to sail a sea of sand (say, parts of the Sahara), the engines have enough power to pump enough air into it to fluidize it.

But not to move the hull.

 

[bilby]

Surface ships are little more than targets on a modern battlefield.

Indeed.

That's why surface ship's captains and crews try, as far as possible, to keep them on water instead. A battleship in a field is basically just a weak fortress, with a huge amount of completely unnecessary propulsion and navigation equipment.

I have actually seen numbers on a landgoing battleship. I'd hate to think of how fast the propellers would wear out but a battleship could be built to sail a sea of sand (say, parts of the Sahara), the engines have enough power to pump enough air into it to fluidize it.

Google screw drive vehicle.

I don't recommend including "screw" as a search term on Google if you are at work.

 

[barbos]

It seems you made that up from whole cloth. I

No, I did not and yes, you signed that agreement
Google more and better.
By the way, by insisting that such agreement/law/principle does not exist you admitted that US/NATO violated it.

 

[barbos]

What international law is that?

The one which says "One can not improve their security at the expense of security of other"

Projection.

The NATO expansion threatened nobody--it's a defensive alliance, if a NATO member were to attack Russia they would receive no support. It's Russia that wants security by making bordering nations into client states.

Bullshit, utter bullshit. Fucking Obama himself (tacitly) admitted that NATO is not a defensive alliance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have actually seen numbers on a landgoing battleship. I'd hate to think of how fast the propellers would wear out but a battleship could be built to sail a sea of sand (say, parts of the Sahara), the engines have enough power to pump enough air into it to

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of.
Big, heavily armed, ships aren't particularly capable of defending themselves from small drones, designed for the task. That's why Russia's fleet got their butts kicked in the Black Sea by a country without a navy.

This was before the era of drone warfare.

A ship sailing through sand?
Yeah, right.
Tom

Pump enough air into the sand and it will fluidize. While you might need to fine tune a few things a ship will basically work in fluidized sand. (It's more often an issue with earthquakes fluidizing wet sand but enough air behaves basically the same.)

 

[barbos]

Big, heavily armed, ships aren't particularly capable of defending themselves from small drones, designed for the task. That's why Russia's fleet got their butts kicked in the Black Sea by a country without a navy.

I would not call it butt kicking. But yeah, Black Sea Fleet is liability in this war. Russia spends resources on protecting it and NATO spends resources on attacking it. In the end, it has no effect on the outcome of the war, whatsoever.
From a military point of view Russia can "resolve" the problem by kicking out NATO planes out of the black Sea by extending security zone. But NATO will do the same in Baltic Sea. So Russian military decided to let it happen.
These 40 year old ships are junk anyway.

For the record. 90% of NATO successful attacks come from attacks on ships in port with no active defence or even crew on it.
When it's in the open sea ukro-nazis usually fail, but it does not get reported by Nazi News sources.
So yeah, Nazi regime spends significant nazi resources on nazi PR victories.